/ 



BX 

6953 
.F3 



THE 

RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

TO THE PRACTICE 

OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 



BY 

ALFRED FARLOW 



\ 



REPRINT FROM THE 

GOVERNMENT MAGAZWE 

(REVISED) 




Class _MliiO. 
Book . F - 

GopghtN°_ 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



/C>6df 



THE 

RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

TO THE PRACTICE 

OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 



BY 

ALFRED FARLOW 



I 



REPRINT FROM THE 

GOVERNMENT MAGAZINE 

(REVISED) 



3/a 



9 S3 



Copyright, 1907 

By ALFRED FARLOW 

Boston, Mass. 



Copyright, 1908 
By ALFRED FARLOW 

Boston, Mass. 



ci. a, w%svz, ?^-t. "? ^- 



THE RELATION OF 

GOVERNMENT TO THE PRACTICE 

OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 



THE question of the legal rights of Christian Science 
practitioners is, in a direct or an indirect form, con- 
stantly being brought before the public. Sometimes 
it appears as a bill before some State legislature to restrict 
the practice of Christian Science or to make it illegal 
for practitioners to receive fees, and sometimes in sensa- 
tional reports in the press of alleged neglect under Chris- 
tian Science treatment. Government regulation is, of 
course, the implied means of restraint, and the points to be 
considered are, how much protection and how much regu- 
lation, if any, are needful to this practice, to what extent is 
it an individual matter, and to what extent does it concern 
the general public? 

If these questions had to do only with those who prac- Far-reaching 
tise Christian Science as a profession, and those who Importance 
believe in its teachings, they would be perhaps of second- Principles 
ary importance; but as a matter of fact the principles Involved, 
involved are of far-reaching importance. They deal with 
constitutional rights, and the doctrines of free speech and 
religious toleration. Even from a more practical stand- 
point, the question of the " regulation" of Christian 
Science practice is one of paramount importance to the 
entire world, for vast numbers of persons have been saved 
from various forms of sin and disease by this Science. 
Through the benign influence of Christian Science thou- 
sands are alive and well to-day, after having failed to 



THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 



The Question 
demands an 
Unbiased 
Investigation. 



recover through the use of material remedies. Family 
feuds have been broken up, drunkards have been reformed, 
the desperately despondent and hopeless have been re- 
stored to a normal enjoyment of their life and work. No 
philosophy or religion has contributed so much and in so 
short a time toward the general destruction of evil. The 
regenerative work, however, is only just begun. There 
are millions yet in need of the same sort of rescue; and it is 
unjust that their privileges should be curtailed by any form 
of legislation, which would incriminate them or their 
benefactors. 

The first point on which a fair judge of the situation will 
wish to assure himself is that there is a real need for legis- 
lation. It is not intelligent to contend against a new 
method and in favor of an old simply because the one is not 
generally accepted while the other is well established. 
Desert, not popularity, must be the point considered. 
Therefore there is no reason why Christian Scientists 
should be adversely dealt with simply because their ideas 
are new. The more exalted thought does not grant des- 
potic sway to a practice by reason of any precedent, but 
decides all things according to their merits. For this 
reason it is noteworthy that the most determined oppo- 
nents of Christian Science are not found among the broad- 
minded noble men who constitute the great body of the 
clergy and physicians, for these men are usually busy 
administering to the sick in mind and body, and have 
little time to spend in any effort to interfere with the prac- 
tice of others, even though such practice points to an effec- 
tual departure from the old lines and thereby appears to 
threaten their personal interests. It is natural from a 
material standpoint that the individual should be loath to 
endorse a system, however efficacious, which appears 
to be competitive with his own, but progress has no 
respect whatever for precedents; it depends upon the 
survival of the fittest, and all may be just, even when 
they cannot be generous. Progressive men welcome new 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 5 

things and recognize the value of unhampered experi- 
mentation as a ready means of arriving at the proper 
conclusion concerning new discoveries. In this age the 
public are looking for results. They have no desire to 
adhere sentimentally to ancient theory and practice, but 
are quite ready to depart from the ways of their ancestors, 
provided better methods are discoverable; and it is evi- 
dent that an early and satisfactory test of new ways and 
means, afforded by full liberty of practice, insures a rapid 
dissemination of a correct knowledge as to their merits. 
Therefore, so long as progressive thinkers and experi- 
menters confine themselves to efforts in behalf of those 
only who apply to them, their right to prove their theories 
by demonstration cannot be questioned. It is a notable 
fact that the public at large has never demanded the 
restriction of Christian Science practice. Almost every 
bill which has been introduced in legislatures with this 
end in view has been presented because of misapprehension 
or prejudice of certain persons or classes and not because 
of popular demand. 

We have reached a stage in the world's history when Wisdom 
we can no longer be hasty in the settlement of such an im- prescribes the 
portant question. It needs to be weighed with delibera- Experience, 
tion and care. To the question, "Do you believe in 
Christian Science?" a wise man said, "I cannot say that 
I do, neither do I disbelieve in it, for I am not sufficiently 
informed on the subject to arrive at a conclusion. " Even 
St. Paul, though he lived in a less advanced age than our 
own, had the wisdom to say, " Be not forgetful to entertain 
strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels un- 
awares." He who is hasty in condemning new enter- 
prises is a menace to universal progress, while he who is 
charitable enough to grant his neighbor an opportunity 
to demonstrate his new proposition contributes to the 
advance of civilization. The declaration made by the 
Master nineteen hundred years ago, "A tree is known by 
its fruits," holds good in this and every age. There is a 



6 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

great deal of wisdom in Gamaliel's advice, "and let them 
alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will 
come to naught." Legislation that prevents reasonable 
experimentation is against progress, for experience alone 
enables the individual to cross over from the field of belief 
to that of knowledge. Even if Christian Science were 
unworthy of its popularity, free access to it, the free privi- 
lege of depending upon it, would be the surest way of 
curing misplaced faith. On the other hand, if experience 
brings good results, it wins its right to recognition and 
endorsement. 

The mission of Christian Science is first to reform, to 
regenerate its beneficiaries mentally and morally. 

Thus we note that healing the sick is a consequence of 
Christian Science practice and not its prime object. The 
practice of Christian Science is not a business, but a 
ministry, not a profession, but a rule of life. It is, pri- 
marily, the practice of religious tenets, which improves 
the patient spiritually. In consequence of this spiritual 
regeneration, abnormal bodily conditions are relieved, and 
the patient is well. Bodily healing is the result of spiritual 
regeneration. From this fact it follows also that every 
man, woman and child, with even a small understanding 
of Christian Science, becomes in a degree a practitioner, 
for his religion is practical, and he is not a consistent 
believer unless he practises what he preaches. Though 
not especially set apart for the ministry, he is able to heal 
in the ratio of his understanding, for the practice of 
Christian Science means no more nor less than to put into 
practice one's understanding of the truth and right. To 
practise Christian Science is to think rightly on all sub- 
jects. 

Since the practice of Christian Science is the practice of 
religious tenets, a law restricting Christian Science prac- 
tice would affect every member of the Christian Science 
Church. Every consistent Christian Scientist is in duty 
bound to help his neighbor in time of trouble, and must be 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 



ready to cure his bodily ills when called upon to do so. 
Therefore any stipulations which prevent him from doing 
this freely and effectually are interferences with his reli- 
gious faith and duty, and as such, are unconstitutional. 

A State Bill of Rights is intended to accord strictly with 
the Constitution of the United States, which vouchsafes 
liberty to the individual, according to the eternal precept 
which our fathers named as the guarantee of our Declara- 
tion of Independence, i.e., "life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness." Whatever else may be included under the 
name of liberty, it is at least clear that an individual is priv- 
ileged to live and die in allegiance to his faith. The right 
of choosing one's own religion and one's own medicine is 
generally acknowledged as an essential provision. The 
State, therefore, has no right to dictate the sort of religion a 
.man shall cherish or the sort of medicine he shall take. 
Moreover, though not privileged to intrude his beliefs 
and practices upon others, a man is permitted by mutual 
agreement to deal with others according to his faith. 
Therefore the State has no right to interfere with a contract 
between two sane persons whereby it is provided that one 
shall give of his religion or consolation or medicine to the 
other for compensation. Such is the condition under 
which Christian Science treatment is given, if at all. 
Christian Scientists confine their service to their own 
famihes and those who apply to them for aid. They have 
no desire to intrude their beliefs upon others who do not 
welcome them. In so doing they seek no special privi- 
lege; they ask no more than fair play — Christian courtesy, 
and a recognition of their constitutional rights. 

From the viewpoint of its students and practitioners, 
Christian Science is the best-known remedy for healing the 
sick, and is the best method of utilizing God's word in 
destroying sin. If it does not so appear to others, the 
burden of proof lies with them; and before condemning the 
practice of Christian Science, or crying out for prohibitive 
legislation, they are under obligations to make a careful 



Religious 
Freedom is 
guaranteed 
by the 
Constitution. 



Every 

System should 
stand on 
Its Merits. 



8 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

study of the value of Christian Science as compared with 
that of the more established methods of healing. More- 
over, investigation can result in a true knowledge of a mat- 
ter only when the investigation is unbiased. Inasmuch as 
the neophyte in Christian Science, like a beginner in math- 
ematics, is limited in his results, it should not be thought 
strange if there are some imperfections to be found in his 
efforts, and a prejudiced person who is looking for failures 
only will be likely to discover only what he seeks. But to 
a fair investigator, Christian Science may cheerfully sub- 
mit its records. Every system of healing should stand 
upon its own merits. If any particular system, new or 
old, can show a reasonable success as compared with the 
standard and legalized methods, it should be regarded as a 
lawful substitute therefor. Whether or not Christian 
Scientists at this age are able to accomplish all that the 
Science itself promises, if it can be shown that they heal as 
large a percentage of patients as do other practitioners, 
then all cause for interference must thereby disappear. 
Christian Those who have had experience first with medicine and 

Science fa en ^^ Christian Science treatment, testify that they 
have experienced better average results from Christian 
Science treatment than under any other, and therefore 
they have chosen this Science. Those who have 
practised first medicine and then Christian Science, testify, 
as a rule, that in the practice of Christian Science they have 
healed a larger percentage of their patients than while 
practising medicine. It is true that some persons have 
died under Christian Science treatment, but this within 
itself is not sufficient provocation for restriction, since 
millions have died under the established method of treat- 
ing the sick. 
The Thousands of families testify that they have fared much 

s eC °aii r d ° f k etter w i tn Christian Science and without medicine than 
Incurables, they formerly did with medicine and without Christian 
Science, and only those who have experimented with 
Christian Science are capable of giving expert testimony 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 9 

on this point. Christian Scientists would not be inclined 
to give their support to any practice which is not demon- 
strably efficacious. They do not discard material reme- 
dies merely to be fanatically loyal to a religious belief, but 
because they have proved by actual experience that in so 
doing they are choosing the better way. The number of 
persons who are depending upon Christian Science at this 
period constitutes a considerable percentage of the popu- 
lation of this country; and for this reason Christian Science 
practitioners may lose a goodly number of cases without 
exceeding the relative loss of other schools of practice. 
Moreover, it must be remembered that of those who apply 
for Christian Science treatment, a majority had already 
been declared incurable by medical practitioners. If, 
perchance, few or many of these so-called incurables should 
fail to recover and should continue in their downward 
course even unto death, there would be no just cause for 
complaint, since medicine had already failed to stay the 
course of the disease. It has been said by experienced 
physicians that eighty-five per cent of sick folks would get 
well without any sort of treatment, and that the majority of 
the remaining fifteen per cent could not be cured by any 
sort of treatment. No great amount of risk can be at- 
tached to the act of placing such cases under Christian 
Science treatment. As a matter of actual knowledge, 
however, with the aid of Christian Science a large per- 
centage of these so-called incurables are cured or greatly 
benefited. According to statistical comparison in two 
States, one in the extreme North and the other in the 
extreme South, seventy per cent of those who applied for 
Christian Science treatment during a period of one year 
had already failed to recover or to receive permanent 
benefits through medical treatment. Of these ninety per 
cent recovered or received permanent benefits under 
Christian Science treatment. 

The writer's own experience as a practitioner of Chris- 
tian Science makes him feel safe in declaring that, as a 



IO 



THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 



Sensational 
Newspaper 
Reports. 



rule, those cases which cannot be cured by Christian 
Scientists are incurable under medical care, and that 
those cases which are readily curable from the medical 
standpoint, yield even more readily to Christian Science 
treatment. He has known but few cases which were 
benefited by medical treatment after having failed to re- 
ceive benefits under Christian Science treatment, and he 
believes that the result in these cases is to be accounted for 
on the basis of Christian Science. One case may be re- 
called — that of a young woman who was having Christian 
Science treatment in the face of strenuous family opposi- 
tion. She was far more annoyed by the bitterness of 
those who surrounded her than by the disease. When she 
finally yielded, at the suggestion of the Christian Science 
practitioner, to the solicitation of her parents, who had 
declared that they would rather see her die than get well 
under Christian Science treatment, she rallied at once. 
This result was not, I believe, due to medicine, for medi- 
cine, previous to the Christian Science treatment, had 
utterly failed to help her. It seems fair to assume rather 
that the improvement was made possible by the breaking 
of the stubborn mental condition about her, which had 
been a constant menace and a source of constant worry 
and fear. Under these new conditions she was able to 
respond to the Christian Science treatment which she had 
been receiving, and a cure was the result. 

In the past considerable noise has been made in the pub- 
lic press regarding alleged losses under Christian Science 
treatment. After careful investigation, we have been able 
to show that from seventy-five to ninety per cent of the 
cases so reported never had anything to do with Christian 
Science, and that sometimes these reports have been ad- 
vertised in the public press in such multitudinous ways as 
to give the impression that a multitude had died. The 
facts given below may be taken as examples of the total 
lack of accuracy and fairness which characterizes some of 
the general reports which have appeared in the press. 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE II 

They relate to various failures which were falsely credited 
to Christian Science practitioners — failures which oc- 
curred under other forms of treatment, and with which 
Christian Science had no concern. The author has in his 
possession documentary matter giving the names, dates 
and localities of the various examples presented, and he 
will cheerfully submit these documents to any one who 
comes to make honest investigation. It was reported that 
in the vicinity of a certain city in Indiana, contagious 
diseases were being spread by Christian Scientists. An 
investigation showed that the report was based upon the 
experience of a person who was not a Christian Scientist, 
but who was under the care of a medical practitioner. 
Another report was circulated in the same state to the 
effect that there was scarlet fever in the house of a Chris- 
tian Scientist, when in fact there was nothing of the kind. 
Scores of cases in the various states of the Union might be 
enumerated where persistent efforts have been made to 
connect various failures and derelictions with Christian 
Scientists. At Franklin, Pennsylvania, about five years 
ago a report was sent out by an enterprising newspaper 
correspondent to the effect that a small boy in that town 
had been bitten by a dog and subsequently developed 
hydrophobia, from which he died. It was alleged that the 
parents had insisted upon his having Christian Science 
treatment, and that this had so enraged the people that 
they rose up against the parents, who then fled the town, 
leaving the body to be buried by the neighbors. The story 
was traced to its source, and it was found that no such 
event had occurred, either with or without connection with 
Christian Science, but that the whole affair was a product of 
the imagination of a newspaper writer who had considered 
this a good topic about which to manufacture a sensational 
story. The facts were afterwards laid before the people of 
that city by one of the leading newspapers. In certain 
States these reports are especially prevalent at the legis- 
lative season, the occasion of the annual attempt of a few 



12 



THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 



Failures not 
Unknown in 
Medical 
Practice. 



persons, self-appointed to the office of " protecting the 
people," to secure legislation unfavorable to Christian 
Scientists. 

These sensational reports sometimes gain an apparent 
authority from the fact that physicians called upon to 
express an opinion concerning a case lost under Christian 
Science treatment, sometimes answer that the patient 
"could have been saved if he had had proper medical 
care." Such an assertion is rarely, if ever, based on per- 
sonal knowledge of the case; and can therefore be made 
only on the assumption that in every instance medical 
treatment is a sure cure. To argue that Christian Science 
is a menace because some depend upon it who should 
haVe medicine and even suffer and die in consequence, is 
not a tenable position, for there is no way of proving that 
such calamity is occasioned by want of drugs. Thou- 
sands die daily under the care of reputable physicians; 
and the world is full of suffering ones who have done and 
are doing all that materia medica dictates in the effort to 
obtain relief, and are still "none the better " but "rather 
growing worse." Then again, a wrong impression has 
been given to the public by a detailed description of those 
cases which die under Christian Science treatment, naming 
those concerned and the kind of treatment, while in con- 
nection with those who die under medical treatment, as a 
rule, no such comments are made. As a matter of fact, if 
even a meagre description of those cases which are lost 
under medical treatment were given in the public press, 
the daily papers would not be large enough to contain the 
news. During a period of six months, including the time 
when a Christian Scientist was arrested at White Plains, 
New York, for manslaughter because he lost one case from 
diphtheria in a family in which he healed three others, 
and in which three had formerly passed away under medi- 
cal treatment, 1145 children died in greater New York 
with the same affliction. 

A good example of the misapprehensions which some- 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 1 3 

times prevail, and the unjust criticisms which have some- 
times been published, is the story of the case of Lincoln 
Litchfield, son of Mr. Caleb H. Litchfield, of Stamford, 
Conn. The death of this boy occurred in the fall of 1904, 
and was heralded broadcast under sensational headlines 
as a case of neglect. The circumstances connected there- 
with were not such as to warrant any unusual comment; 
and if the injustice done to the Litchfield family were 
the only thing to be considered in the matter, we might 
pass it by without further notice, for doubtless they have 
suffered sufficiently from their loss and would prefer no 
further public mention; but in addition to the exag- 
gerations apparent in the first report, the story received 
embellishments in the course of its circulation. These 
statements tend to give a very erroneous impression con- 
cerning the attitude of Christian Scientists toward con- 
tagious diseases and concerning their ability to cope with 
contagion. 

One paper referred to this case as "A Christian Science The 
Victim." In the same little city of Stamford five other Q^ titd 
children afflicted with diphtheria died about the same 
period. They were all under the care of medical practi- 
tioners. Three deaths occurred during October, one in 
November and one in August. One child was sick only 
thirty-six hours; another was ill two days, and it is said in 
connection with the case that " anti-toxin was administered 
early." Another was six days, and still another seven 
days; the average duration of the six cases being about four 
and one-half days. The Litchfield child lived seven days, 
much beyond the average, and as long as the one under 
medicine who made the best fight, and thus it is shown 
statistically that the Christian Science child involved in 
this discussion fared better than the average under medi- 
cal treatment. A reasonable inference is therefore that 
he perhaps would have died much earlier if he had not 
been treated primarily by a Scientist. That the Litchfield 
child was found sick at school and sent home is positively 



14 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

denied by his teacher. He was from his first illness 
kept out of school by the voluntary action of his parents, 
and was not permitted thereafter to leave the house, nor 
were the other children of the family. Contrary to the 
press reports that the child was permitted to mingle with 
other children after he was taken sick, no child was 
allowed to enter the house during that time. 

Again, it is stated by the health officer that most of the 
five cases, including the one who died in four days, were 
very critical before the physician was called. This being 
true, these cases were also open to a charge of negligence. 
Are we not justified, therefore, in asking why these were 
not given to the public press, and made the basis of sensa- 
tional stories? Why this discrimination against the case 
which pertained to the family of Christian Scientists? 
Here we have a distorted report of the management of a 
Christian Science case, — management in no sense less 
commendable than the usual practice of non-believers 
in Christian Science, — while no report whatever is made 
of the five worse records under materia medica. Is it not 
apparent that such partiality tends to prejudice the public 
and incite undue criticism? 

Would it have been proper to say that the five cases 
mentioned were victims of materia medica — especially 
the one who was sick only thirty-six hours, and the one 
whose duration of illness is mentioned as two days, and 
concerning which it is said anti-toxin was administered 
early ? Inasmuch as the child died within two days after 
anti-toxin was administered, was it because the anti-toxin 
was effectual, or because anti-toxin failed? If the anti- 
toxin failed in this case and in the other four cases, upon 
what grounds can it be assumed that it would have suc- 
ceeded in the sixth case, which was treated for a few days 
by a Christian Scientist. We are not publishing these 
failures of medical practice for the purpose of casting any 
reflection whatever upon that profession, but for the pur- 
pose of presenting a just and fair basis of comparison in 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 1 5 

dealing with this subject. We are of the opinion that all 
those connected with the six cases, including parents, 
doctors and Christian Scientists, acted up to their highest 
intelligence and convictions, and do not merit censure. 
Only it does not appear that any class of practitioners in 
this age has demonstrated sufficient success to justify it in 
condemning the failures of others. 

The actual facts, then, appear to be as follows. No 
deaths occurred as a result of the sickness of Lincoln 
Litchfield. Three of the five cases under medical treat- 
ment reached an incurable condition, from the medical 
viewpoint, inside of four days — one of them in thirty-six 
hours and another in forty-eight hours — while the one 
under Christian Science was still making a good fight after 
six days. The actual evidence is therefore that the child 
did thirty-five per cent better under Christian Science 
treatment, provided the aggregate skill employed in the five 
cases was comparatively equal to that employed by the 
Christian Scientist family. Thus it is demonstrated that, 
in the city of Stamford, Christian Science is a better remedy 
than medicine for diphtheria, and, far from being a menace 
to the health of the community, Christian Science is a 
needed help, and should be praised, not condemned, by 
all who are interested in the welfare of the community. In- 
stead of using the heading "A Christian Science Victim,'' 
it would appear that the newspaper should have announced, 
"Christian Science prolongs the Life of a Child, and aids 
in Checking the Spread of Contagion." 

In some of the legislative contests efforts have been made The Legal 
to interdict the acceptance of a fee by practitioners; to §^ tion oi 
make it a law that the acceptance of a fee by a Christian 
Scientist constitutes him a medical practitioner. If this 
view held good, the practising Christian Scientist would be 
on a plane with the quacks who, without proper training, 
and unlicensed, deceive the public by pretending to pre- 
scribe medicine for disease. That no such view is tenable 
has, however, been affirmed through decisions in the courts. 



Fees. 



1 6 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

In the case of Tomlinson vs. Speed, in the New Hamp- 
shire Courts, in 1904, a charge of fraud was brought against 
Mr. Tomlinson, based upon the allegation that he had 
accepted a fee, though a very moderate one, and had held 
out to the patient inducements that she could be healed; 
and yet, it was alleged, he had failed to effect the healing. 
It was proved, however, that the patient was treated by the 
practitioner only for three or four days, after which she 
applied to a surgeon, who stated under oath that she was 
not so bad when she applied to him as she was a year 
before, when he advised that an operation should be de- 
layed. At the trial the judge held that, if the defendant 
practised consistently with the teaching of the Christian 
Science text-book, and did what he represented to do as a 
practitioner of Christian Science, there was no evidence of 
fraud; that, even if he did hold out an inducement to the 
patient that she could be healed, it would be natural for him 
to do this, since he himself had faith in Christian Science 
and the patient knew that he had, and therefore such 
encouragement could not be considered as a contract to 
heal her, but in perfect keeping with the practice of a 
physician, wherein, for example, he encourages the patient 
to believe that there is hope, and yet afterwards fails to 
cure or benefit him. 

To assume that Christian Scientists are subject to a 
license system because they accept a fee for the time con- 
sumed in the service of another is manifestly unjustifiable, 
for the reason that neither the acceptance nor the non- 
acceptance of a fee affects their right to practice. If the 
practice of Christian Science is right, the acceptance of a 
fee therefor will not make it wrong. If, on the other hand, 
the practice is wrong, the non-acceptance of a fee will 
not make it right. The acceptance of a fee is entirely in- 
dependent both of medical practice and of Christian 
Science practice, and, as in the case of ordinary labor, is 
dependent upon custom and a mutual sense of right 
respecting the value of time expended and the service 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 1 7 

rendered. The license system is adopted for the purpose of 
guaroing against malpractice, while the giving or accept- 
ing of a fee is based upon a legitimate contract between two 
individuals, a contract with which the state has no right to 
interfere. 

All Christians, we may suppose, pray for the recovery of 
the sick; and, if the prayers of Christian Scientists are 
effective, unaided by drugs, that fact does not consti- 
tute a reason why such effective prayers should be offered 
without compensation. If the ministers of other denomi- 
nations were compelled to preach and pray without a fee, 
how many of them would continue ? Yet no one blames 
them for this attitude, since the common policy of com- 
pensation laid down by the Master of Christianity, viz., 
"The laborer is worthy of his hire," is right from every 
point of view. The only moral basis for commerce or for 
mutual ministry is that of a fair exchange of values. To 
give something without expecting a disposition to make 
return is no less disastrous to sound ethics than to receive 
something for nothing. One may be unselfish enough to 
labor for another without remuneration, but in so doing 
he fosters selfishness in his beneficiary by allowing him to 
have something without having in some way earned it. 
Such practice lowers the standard of ideal individuality. 
Therefore, a law compelling Christian Science practi- 
tioners to labor without a fee would be not only unjust and 
unwise, but also unmoral. It would not only interfere 
with religious liberty, but it would force irreligious practice. 

Since some critics have made the assertion that the The 
acceptance of a fee is not in keeping with divine healing as ^ cce P ta £" of 
it is taught in the Scriptures, it may not be amiss to con- Moral 
sider this question from a Scriptural standpoint. Atten- Question, 
tion has been called to Peter's declaration to Simon, the 
sorcerer, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast 
thought that the gift of God may be purchased with 
money." This statement is self-explanatory. Simon 
was not rebuked for any willingness to sacrifice material 



1 8 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

substance for spiritual benefits, but because he wanted to 
put the matter of obtaining and dealing out divine power on 
a commercial basis. He worked wonders as a trade, and 
desired to add the Christian method as a new acquisition 
to his business. Though Elisha refused reward from 
Naaman, it is to be recalled that his chief object was to 
awaken in the worldly mind of the Syrian general a sense 
of the value of spiritual things, which no money can buy. 
The sin of Gehazi, on the other hand, for which he paid so 
heavy a penalty, lay, not in the acceptance of a reasonable 
fee, but in his greed for material things, and his belief in 
the reality of the material. The avaricious sense which 
caused him to be so immodest as to beg for that which he 
had not earned, and to which he was not entitled, was the 
basis of his disease. On the other hand, with the simple- 
hearted Shunammite, Elisha's conduct was entirely dif- 
ferent. He frankly accepted her hospitality and in return 
gave her and her family of the spiritual blessings of his 
healing power. The founder of the Christian religion had 
so much faith in the ability of his followers to earn a living 
by their practice, that he advised them not to wait until 
they had an abundance before they entered upon their 
mission of teaching and healing. He told them to go 
without making provision for their daily wants, assuring 
them that "The laborer is worthy of his hire," and when 
they returned he inquired of them if they had lacked any- 
thing in carrying out his suggestions, and they replied, 
" Nothing. " Thus we note that the Scriptures support 
the law of just reward or compensation for benefits 
bestowed. 
Christian The assertion has sometimes been made by those 

Sci f°fj* opposed to Christian Science that it has produced discord 

an e amiy. .^ Monies an( j therefore ought to be checked. We have 
known of a few instances where certain members of a 
household have accepted Christian Science while the 
others have rejected it, but this is true of other religious 
beliefs; it is true of political matters and various other 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 1 9 

questions. One seldom finds a household which is per- 
fectly agreed upon any one of these subjects, but it has 
never been argued that when a family or community is 
divided in its opinions the courts should decide which 
view shall be adopted by a family as its common belief or 
practice. It is quite generally conceded that each indi- 
vidual may enjoy liberty of thought and conscience, that 
each may be permitted an individual choice of reading, 
religion, medicine and politics. Moreover, the few cases 
of homes in which discordant conditions have selected 
Christian Science as an issue are far outweighed by the 
number of families in which Christian Science has restored 
a united and wholesome family life. From the very 
delicacy of the questions involved, the number of these 
cases will never be fully known; but every one who has 
even a casual acquaintance with Christian Science can 
point to homes, among his own acquaintance, where, in 
curing the dissipation and selfishness of husbands, and 
the frivolity or the forgetfulness of wives, Christian Science 
has brought a harmony for which none of those concerned 
can be sufficiently thankful. 

In spite of the attempts of a few opponents of Christian The 
Science to bring about restrictive legislation, it appears to jJSfjJ? 611 * of 
be generally conceded that no state has a right to interfere 
with individual dependence upon Christian Science, nor 
with the treatment of the adult who applies to this school of 
healing; but it has been claimed that a parent should not 
be permitted to have his child treated by this method. 
This argument, of course, rests upon a sound principle, 
though one which does not here apply. Minors should 
be protected, and parents who display inability or unwil- 
lingness to provide properly for their children should be 
subject to the dictation of the law. Accordingly the laws 
of the country justly provide against a parent's cruelty to 
his children. Comfort and proper care are among the 
individual rights of a child, vouchsafed by the common- 
wealth; and the use of methods and means which are 



20 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

clearly detrimental to the child, though practised in the 
name of religion, should be considered a trespass upon 
individual rights. Justice, however, would demand that 
if a parent proposes treatment for his child which is not 
in harmony with his neighbor's sense of right, and there- 
fore the neighbor purposes to intervene on behalf of the 
child, his first task should be to establish, by a thorough 
investigation, the merits or demerits of the system in 
question. Thus when the assumption is made that a child 
under Christian Science treatment is being neglected, it 
behooves those who bring such an accusation to establish 
their claim by careful investigation. Such investigation, in 
order to arrive at all the facts and establish a just compari- 
son, should include the notation not only of failures on 
the part of Christian Science practitioners, but of their 
successes, and not only the successes of medical practi- 
tioners, but their failures. Interference is of course out 
of the question, unless it can be shown that a dependence 
upon Christian Science is detrimental to the child's safety. 
Otherwise, it must be remembered that a parent is the 
natural guardian of his child, and a Christian Science 
parent is not an exception, and he has the privilege of 
choosing that which in his judgment is in the interest of the 
cliild's welfare. 
The # Those who have only a cursory knowledge of Christian 

White Plains g c j ence resu lt s might look upon the withholding of medi- 
cine from a child as neglect, but on the other hand, a Chris- 
tian Scientist would regard the administration of medicine 
as wholly inadequate. Moreover, Christian Science has 
proved itself quite as efficacious in the treatment of children 
as in the treatment of adults. While the critic points to 
the child that has died under Christian Science treatment, 
the Scientist has in mind many children whose fives have 
been saved through Science after medical practice had 
proved futile. For example: Mrs. Quimby of White 
Plains, New York, after losing three of her children under 
medical treatment and having become an invalid herself, 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 21 

turned to Christian Science as a last resort. She was 
restored to health. Later four members of her family 
were seized with diphtheria, and under Christian Science 
treatment three were healed and one died; whereupon a 
charge of manslaughter was brought against the practi- 
tioner. As a matter of course, and as a matter of history, 
this charge was not sustained by the Court. The White 
Plains incident demonstrates two facts : first, the superiority 
of Christian Science treatment in that particular home; 
second, the proneness of the age to judge without con- 
sideration. A mother with such evidence before her has 
oveiwhelming testimony that Christian Science is the more 
reliable remedy, notwithstanding one child died under its 
treatment. The neighbors should judge according to the 
evidence, and not according to a preconceived and prej- 
udiced opinion. "By their fruits ye shall know them." 

It would be quite as unjust for any state or municipality 
to force Christian Science parents to administer medicine 
to their children, as it would be to force parents who be- 
lieve in the use of medicine to depend upon Christian 
Science. In either case the action should not be governed 
by popular opinion nor by prejudice, but should be decided 
on the actual merits of the proposed remedy. And Chris- 
tian Scientists who dispense with medicine in their homes 
fare quite as well as, if not better than, those who depend 
upon drugs, and they have the advantage of being free 
from any unpleasant or detrimental after effects. 

The argument that Christian Scientists need to under- 
stand diagnosis in order to practise safely, is based upon 
erroneous assumption. Christian Scientists do not assume 
the responsibility of diagnosing disease. They do not 
assume to know any more or any less about contagious 
diseases than those laymen who depend upon medicine, 
except in so far as their experience in handling disease 
may afford them an unusual knowledge of symptoms. 
When they are perplexed with suspicious diseases, their 
practice is exactly in accord with that of other laymen; 



22 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

they are privileged to employ a qualified diagnostician. 
Considering the subtlety of diphtheria from a medical 
viewpoint, it should not be thought strange that occasion- 
ally Christian Science parents should fail to detect its 
presence. Every day witnesses many such instances on 
the part of parents who are non-Scientists. Even the best 
physicians frequently err in their diagnosis. Only a few 
years ago a small-pox epidemic was due to the mistaken 
diagnosis of a physician. 
The Christian Scientists claim no greater, and probably 

tanterious° f P ossess no l ess a ^ility to diagnose disease than other lay- 
Diseases, men. As to the alleged delay on the part of Christian 
Science parents in reporting cases to the authorities, it is 
well known to those who have taken pains to investigate, 
that some of our physicians have sometimes delayed the 
report of serious cases as a matter of good judgment, and 
to avoid the probable panic of those who may be near the 
sick one; and no harm has resulted therefrom, for such 
cases are usually faithfully isolated. The deplorable 
thing is that physicians who know of such discrepancies, 
and practise them, should condemn their neighbors, who 
do not believe in the use of medicine, for sometimes delay- 
ing a report until convinced of its necessity. When we con- 
sider the unjust and irregular treatment which Christian 
Scientists sometimes receive at the hands of those who 
seize any opportunity to use their authority over an un- 
fortunate one, we do not wonder that the Scientist Is not 
anxious to report to the officers before it is necessary. If 
they did not have unbounded faith that their God will 
deliver them from any ordeal through which they may be 
called to pass, they would be even more disposed to hesi- 
tate. While officers must enforce the law, they should 
be courteous and kind, and seek to relieve the distress of the 
afflicted and not add thereto. Christian Scientists, there- 
fore, are as careful to quarantine or isolate their patient as 
any other class of practitioners, for they are aware that any 
added anxiety increases their burden of responsibility 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 23 

and labor. It is their desire always to obey the law and 
to do that which insures the safety of their neighbors. The 
case at Stamford, Connecticut, already referred to, has of 
course been used as a basis for unfavorable comment on 
the treatment of contagion by Christian Scientists. While 
the Litchfield family concerned therein, according to the 
usually accepted law, must have contracted the disease 
from non- Scientists, there is no evidence that they com- 
municated it to other children. This fact indicates that 
the Christian Science family was more successful in 
guarding against the spreading of disease in this case than 
their neighbors from whom they received it, and the 
accusation of being a menace to the public health does not 
apply to the Christian Scientist family so forcibly as it 
does to those from whom they contracted the disease. If 
exaggeration had been eliminated from the press reports 
concerning the Litchfield case these reports would have 
been robbed of their appearance of unusual importance as 
sensational news items, and editors would have cast them 
into the waste basket. 

This sensationalism is of course calculated, if not Observance 
intended, to prejudice the public; to create antagonism, ° f the 
and to mar the fair name of Christian Scientists by mak- Quarantine. 
ing it appear that they have regard neither for the safety 
of their own families nor for that of others. In case of 
the neglect of these laws they are liable to the same pen- 
alties to which others are amenable, and they claim no 
special privileges. As a matter of fact, consistent Christian 
Scientists are even more careful to observe the laws of 
quarantine than any other class of individuals. They 
prefer the isolation of acute cases on the basis of Christian 
Science, whether they be contagious or not. This they do 
because they recognize fear as one of the prime factors 
in the spreading of contagion. Moreover, they do not care 
to incur the unnecessary risk and extra labor occasioned 
by permitting their sick to mingle with others. They 
recognize the material law of contagion and that it must 



24 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

be heeded until it is broken by the application of Christian 
truth. Christian Scientists have no desire whatever to 
advocate or encourage carelessness, but they have a right 
to insist upon fair representation. 

It may be noted also that Christian Scientists sometimes 
sacrifice personal liberties out of consideration for public 
opinion and the fears and apprehensions of their neighbors. 
In pursuance of this policy Mrs. Eddy advises that Chris- 
tian Scientists shall not at present treat contagious diseases. 
Mrs. Eddy's attitude on this question is purely a matter of 
her own choosing, in deference to public opinion and 
" until Christian Science shall be better understood." 
She also advises that Christian Scientists shall not under- 
take surgical cases, and, in the event of accident or ex- 
treme pain, when they fail to relieve the suffering of the 
patient, they are permitted to call a physician to administer 
an opiate as a means of temporary relief and to enable the 
patient to bridge over an extreme moment and secure a 
more favorable condition for mental treatment. 

Thus it has been shown that Christian Scientists have 
been extremely modest, unselfish and careful in the 
protection of the public. Therefore, to charge them with 
being a menace to public health, or to demand legislation 
which shall compel them to administer medicine to their 
children, is unwarranted; it is an attempt to enact class 
legislation. In most cases where the attempt has been 
made to expose alleged carelessness on the part of Chris- 
tian Scientists, careful investigation has revealed an equal 
amount, and sometimes a double degree, of the same kind 
of carelessness on the part of those who are not Christian 
Scientists. It is not a common practice to call a physician 
every time a child exhibits some small and apparently un- 
alarming ailment, but it is probably true that sometimes 
avoidable trouble ensues because of carelessness to call 
proficient help; and this may occur from delay to call 
an experienced Christian Scientist quite as naturally as 
from neglect to call an M.D. However, there is about as 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 25 

much danger in too much attention as there is in too 
little; for too much care, too constant brooding over the 
probability of danger, subjects one to constant risk while 
carelessness applies only to the chance case of neglect. 
It is not easy to decide which of the two conditions is the 
lesser evil. Carelessness is not due to Christian Science 
in any event, but to a want of it. If it exists, it is individual 
and not chargeable to Christian Science. That their 
management of contagious cases is adequate, that if, 
perchance, they lack in medical diagnosis, they have a very 
excellent substitute therefor, is evidenced by the general 
results. Christian Science not only heals contagious 
disease but destroys contagion and prevents the spread 
of disease by destroying or minimizing the fear of those 
who place themselves under its influence. The present 
laws of the States do not forbid the practice of Christian 
Science in contagious cases, nor do we believe that a law 
framed to interfere with such practice would be constitu- 
tional. 

The whole case in favor of Christian Science practice Mr. 
was well summed up by Mr. Samuel M. Gardenshire, the Gardenshire's 
able lawyer who conducted the White Plains case. Mr. pimo11, 
Gardenshire said: "The Christian Scientists ought not 
to be denied the privilege of advising a person to do those 
things which that person has a right to do without such 
advice. It is the very basis of governmental association 
that one man is entitled to influence another man for good, 
as he may see it. The right of petition and the right of 
free speech are involved in the proposition that if the 
Christian Scientist, in his opinion, has derived a benefit 
from his creed or his belief , he may impart it for all that it 
may mean to another. The man who administers dan- 
gerous drugs professionally ought to be restrained by 
examination, bond or license. The man who operates as 
a surgeon, and professionally cuts with instruments into 
the human body, ought to be restrained by examination, 
bond or license. The attorney who practises professionally 



26 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

in the conduct of causes, and who practises a profes- 
sion which is admittedly a profession of knowledge and 
scientific in character, ought to be restrained by exami- 
nation, bond or license; but a Christian Scientist who 
professes a religion under the Constitution, and who heals 
only by admonition, counsel and an adjuration to good 
conduct, exercises a right which is inherent in him as a 
citizen and not as a Christian Scientist, and to restrain him 
is to confuse the liberty of the citizen under the organic 
law, and such an act must be unconstitutional. " 
The Grounds There can be no question, then, that the Christian 
Relation. Science practitioner, treating only those who request his 
aid, and who are under no misapprehension as to the scope 
of his operations, is within the full exercise of his consti- 
tutional rights. He proceeds on the basis of a right of 
contract with which the State has no claim to interfere. 
But a question may arise regarding the ability of a con- 
tractor to keep his agreement, and this question is the 
basis for what is technically called regulation. If a man 
is practising medicine and does not understand it, he lays 
himself open to charges of fraud. 

When, however, he is practising Christian Science, the 
only question that can arise concerns his understanding of 
this Science, and his ability to apply it. In so far as 
concerns the answer to this question, Christian Scientists 
require regulation ; but here the Christian Science move- 
ment does not wait for any action on the part of the State. 
It regulates its own recognized practitioners and teachers 
by requiring them to possess certain qualifications. These 
qualifications, however, do not include a knowledge of 
physical diagnosis and materia medica, since neither of 
these is requisite to the practice of Christian Science. 
It must be plain that any attempt to make the Christian 
Science practitioner amenable to the educational require- 
ment of an M.D., and consequently, a criminal if 
he practises without such qualification, is simply an in- 
direct way of prohibiting the practice, for it is quite 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 27 



evident, even to a casual thinker, that Christian Scientists 
cannot consistently undertake a three, four or six years • 
medical course. The knowledge gained by such a course 
would be useless to them, and would work a hardship 
which would, in a large measure, restrict the practice of 
Christian Science. 

On the other hand, there is a plausible reason for regu- 
lating the practice of medicine, since this practice involves 
an intelligent discrimination in the use of drugs. The 
medical practitioner should know the difference between 
the effects of calomel and arsenic. Furthermore, a sur- 
geon must be thoroughly versed in anatomy. 

Before being allowed to enter upon the grave responsi- 
bilities of his office it is proper, for instance, that he be re- 
quired to know the location of the veins and arteries which 
may He in the pathway of his knife. Since the proposed 
good effect of drugs is dependent upon their wise 
dispensation, and the success of surgery is depend- 
ent upon the surgeon's knowledge of anatomy and his 
mechanical skill, one who is engaged in the practice of 
medicine and surgery should be thoroughly informed in all 
the branches of education pertaining thereto. And if 
physicians desire to maintain or improve their standard by 
specifically requiring their practitioners to possess certain 
qualifications, there is no reason why they should not be 
permitted to do this. 

No class of persons should, however, be expected to 
qualify in the study of anatomy, pathology, bacteriology, 
diagnosis, etc., who do not expect to use these particular 
branches of education in their practice. Only those 
should be considered amenable to a law regulating the 
practice of medicine who practise according to those 
methods for which the line of education provided in the 
law qualifies. (Moreover, a law making Christian Scientists 
amenable to the educational requirements of a physician 
is dangerously near to class legislation.) Many laws that 
are supposed to be regulative are simply efforts to limit one 



Regulation 
Essential in 
Medicine and 
Surgery. 



A Regulative 
Law must 
also grant 
Privileges. 



2& THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

class in order to widen the opportunities of another. Such 
laws are contrary to the principles of a republic, whether 
they be intentionally or unintentionally made, and the 
guarantee of the individual or the class, against such re- 
strictions on the one hand and monopoly on the other 
hand, is vouchsafed as a constitutional right. While a 
given law is intended to regulate practitioners, it is also 
intended to grant and to protect certain rights and privi- 
leges. Therefore, if just, a law intended to regulate certain 
practice must justly apply only to that class of practitioners 
for which it provides. If it provides only for M.D.'s, it 
can regulate only M.D.'s. If a law is so limited in its 
provisions as not to afford any privileges to Christian 
Scientists, and yet, at the same time, curtails the rights of 
Christian Scientists, it is partial and amounts to class leg- 
islation. If the framers of this law had it in mind to grant 
to medical practitioners the rights and privileges which they 
did not vouchsafe to Christian Scientists, they, in this 
respect, violated the privilege of equal rights, and the law 
is, therefore, unconstitutional. Even though the law un- 
intentionally discriminates against Christian Scientists 
without also making due provisions for their rights, it is 
none the less unconstitutional. 
Prayer The Christian Scientist deals with neither medicine nor 

BMmfoti ™ sur g ei 7> an d his practice is not accompanied by the dan- 
gers which belong to a practitioner of medicine or surgery. 
His requisites consist of a clear and unmistakable under- 
standing of Christian Science and a high degree of spirit- 
uality. The power which he uses is mad% operative, not 
through drugs, but through prayer. Prayers necessitate 
no regulation, for it is quite popularly conceded that if, 
from a sceptic's viewpoint, they do no good, they certainly 
will do no harm. If, however, for any reason the State 
should assume the responsibility of granting individual 
license to pray, it should at least observe the doctrine of 
equal rights to all its citizens. All Christians pray for the 
sick; some accompany their prayers with drugs because 



Regulation. 



TO THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 29 

they think their prayers would prove inadequate without 
them. Christian Scientists, however, find their prayers 
preclude any necessity for drugs. If there is a difference 
between the prayers of a Christian Scientist and those 
which have been offered in past years without the 
knowledge of Christian Science, it may be seen in im- 
proved results, but the mere fact that prayers avail more 
now than they did formerly does not seem to be an intelli- 
gent reason why medical knowledge should be demanded 
of those who pray. There should be no discrimination 
against the prayers of Christian Scientists on the basis that 
they are of a quality to insure an answer, or that they heal 
sickness as well as sin. A prayer which destroys bodily 
ills is no more dangerous and no more in need of regulation 
than a prayer which overcomes sin only. Therefore, if a 
law exists which provides that Christian Scientists must be 
examined as to their qualifications to pray for others, this 
same law should be applied to all other praying people. 
How many clergymen would remain in the ministry if 
they were compelled to have a four years' medical course 
before being permitted to pray for their parishioners? 
Not only our good clergymen, but all laymen, according 
to the proposed regulation, should be required to obtain a 
State license before entertaining a desire or prayer that 
God shall guide, sustain and protect and heal their neigh- 
bors. Why is it that the requirements of medical knowl- 
edge as a qualification for safe prayer had not been 
thought of until Christian Scientists appeared in the arena 
of human affairs ? All Christians pray for the sick, what- 
ever may be their afflictions, but no legislative body or 
medical association has ever concerned itself with the kind 
of prayer that is offered by another religious sect. 

It would be quite as unreasonable to require Christian 
Scientists to pass an examination in materia medica as it 
would be to require M.D.'s to pass an examination in 
Christian Science. If it is proper for the State to require 
any qualifications from a Christian Scientist, it should 



30 THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT 

require those qualifications which enhance the practice of 
Christian Science. There is no constitutional provision to 
prevent the Christian Scientist from practising within the 
bounds of that which he professes, and thus far in the his- 
tory of our country a man's right to practise his religion 
has never been made contingent upon medical knowledge, 
nor the question as to whether he was to be compensated 
for his service. 

" Here shall the Press the People's right maintain, 
Unaw'd by influence and unbrib'd by gain; 
Here patriot Truth her glorious precepts draw, 
Pledg'd to Religion, Liberty and Law." 

Joseph Story. 



y 



/COPY. DEL. TO CAT. OIV, 

MOV 9 1909 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



mi 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



y^ 




M 






m. pk 



